A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post about annual fire door assembly inspection and why it’s important for the safety of building occupants. The video below from a recent hotel fire clearly illustrates how code-compliant fire doors can help to save lives.
If all fire door assemblies were kept in code-compliant condition at all times, maybe fire door inspections wouldn’t be quite so important. But the truth is…the majority of existing fire doors have deficiencies, and there’s no way to know how the doors will function during a fire. Case in point…last November I wrote about a report that had been released by the Minnesota State Fire Marshal’s Office. The report detailed a fire that occurred in a Minneapolis high rise, where 5 people were killed. According to the report, the door leading to the apartment where the fire originated did not close properly because of a seal at the bottom of the door that caught on the flooring. This open door contributed to the fatalities as well as the property damage.
If the door to Apartment 1407 had been subject to a fire door inspection, presumably the deficiency would have been resolved and the door would have closed automatically to deter the spread of the fire. Unfortunately, a few months before the fire occurred, Minnesota removed the requirement for annual inspections from their state fire code:
Exception: Periodic testing and inspection in accordance with NFPA 80 and NFPA 105 is not required for swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies. Swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies shall be maintained in an operable condition in accordance with NFPA 80 and NFPA 105. Damaged or defective swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies shall be repaired or replaced.
When making this modification to the International Fire Code (IFC), a Statement of Need and Reasonableness was submitted, explaining the reason for removing the inspection requirement – it was unnecessary and too costly:
7511.0705 SECTION 705, DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS.
This new rule part modifies section 705.2 of the 2018 IFC by adding an exception exempting swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies from the testing and inspection requirements of NFPA 80 and NFPA 105. Section 705.2 of the 2018 IFC requires opening protectives to be inspected and maintained in accordance with NFPA 80 and NFPA 105, which includes swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies. The inspection and testing of swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies is a requirement that is new to the 2018 IFC and is a significant change to the code.
The annual inspection and testing of swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies is unnecessary because of the relatively simple operation of these types of door assemblies and the expense of testing. The Minnesota State Fire Code only requires annual inspection and testing of horizontal and vertical rolling and sliding doors because their operations are complex and require testing to ascertain that they are operating correctly. To ensure that a swinging fire door or smoke door assembly is operating correctly, all that is needed is: (1) a visual check for damage and alteration; and (2) verification that the door fully closes and latches when released from the full open position. NFPA 80 and NFPA 105 require specialized testing and inspection of swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies unnecessary to ensure that the door operates properly. The cost of NFPA 80 and NFPA 105 compliant inspection and testing of swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies can represent a significant cost for larger apartment buildings and lodging facilities. For an apartment building with 100 units and 120 swinging fire doors, the cost of inspection and testing is approximately $2,400 per a year. It is reasonable to exempt swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies from the testing and inspection requirements of NFPA 80 and NFPA 105 because: (1) under section 705.2, the doors will still need to be maintained in accordance with NFPA 80 and NFPA 105; and (2) extensive testing and inspection is unnecessary to verify that the doors operate in compliance with those standards.
The Minnesota exemption states that fire door assemblies don’t need to be inspected, but that the assemblies must be maintained in operable condition with deficient components repaired or replaced. The model codes have always required these assemblies to be properly maintained, but this requirement isn’t enough – proven by the condition of millions of fire doors across the US. That is exactly why fire door inspections are now required by code. In my opinion, removing the inspection requirements through a state modification of the model codes is detrimental to the safety of building occupants.
What do you think?
You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.
I think that, by the very fact five people died, the requirements for annual fire door inspection SHOULD be enforced. The statement that the inspection is new to 2018 IFC is incorrect. NFPA80 first wrote about FDAI in 2007. IFC, IBC, and NFPA101 then referenced it in 2009, didn’t they?
Yes, that is correct. I’m wondering about potential liability for jurisdictions that remove the requirement from the code or do not enforce it.
– Lori
Most building owners or building ‘engineers’ have no idea what NFPA-80 is let alone read it. I can’t begin to count how many times I’ve seen hardware repairs done with drywall screws, even on metal doors.
Lori,
Oh, where do I begin. The lack of knowledge on the part of the someone that would state, “The annual inspection and testing of swinging fire door and smoke door assemblies is unnecessary because of the [relatively simple operation] of these types of door assemblies and the expense of testing.”(brackets added for emphasis). This is a comment from someone who clearly does not know the number of complex hardware components of a Fire Door Assembly that could cause a door to fail at the time of a fire if not properly installed and maintained not to mention both normal wear and tear as well as abuse. “Doors, shutters, and windows are of no value unless they are properly maintained and closed or are able to close at the time of fire.” (from NFPA 80 A.5.2).
In my 20+ years as a Locksmith, I know firsthand the non-compliant repairs that are made to these assemblies all in the name of saving a few bucks. The non-fire rated components that are added on top of (literally) structure damage to avoid replacing a door all in the name of “Making it look good”. Sure, the cost savings can add up for the short game, but you are playing Russian Roulette (not meaning to be politically incorrect) here. The cost of just one Lawsuit at the loss of just one life (not to mention there were 5 lost in the article) will cost Millions and then the building replacement costs just add up on top of that. It is going to be costly in comparison to replace just the room of origin but if the fire gets out due to a faulty fire door, then you would have a lot more building to replace (why aren’t the Insurance companies pushing harder for these inspections I wonder).
I could go on and on about this. As a CFDAI and Instructor for DHI, I am outraged (to say the least) when I see comments like that being made by someone outside the Industry. I wonder if they did their due diligence and contacted an Industry expert to get their input. I know of at least one place they could have reached out to….
I think it’s time to get a beer to bring my blood pressure back down now. Thanks for letting me have this short vent….
Paul
With 40+ years in facility maintenance, I strongly agree that inspections of Fire Door assemblies remain. Very little maintenance is done unless an inspection in on the horizon ie JACHO, Insurance renewal, and Fire Department is when you get to spend those precious dollars. I have noticed that maintenance budgets operate like an ambulance and only spent on emergency basis. For the good of the occupants keep the inspections!